Hi Truk.
The voting information will be displayed in the whitepaper shortly. Whitepapers are normally up for discussion for 5+ days before voting starts.
We are aware that there have been some issues with setting up polling and we are looking at solutions now.
Thanks,
Sam
Its a YES vote from me! Best of luck guys, you deserve to have this succeed!
Have been following BlockGrain with interest. Awesome product with huge potential. Yes from me.
I have worked in the grain shipping, trucking Industry and in logistics.
Yes there is a need to eliminate wasted time, product, fuel and workforce.
Lot of guys use Ipads or similar devices.
Big yes from me.
cheers
Thanks. However I am unable to vote yes because the voting feature in the Nanowallet says: âVoting Center is under maintenance and being upgraded for next release.â
Yes
Go to send and send 0 xem to this address as a yes.
yep just send to that address. no xem needed.
EDITEDâ address removed see post below ----
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
@xemnewbie
You are wrong. This is pool address not yes address in this poll. @BlockGrain_SW please put correct yes/no addresses.
Pool address: NBOOZMXZMKQMCYLRH4R5CTOIGRVYQFNQ677K7VLK
If you want vote, please send 0 XEM transaction to one of addresses below:
Yes - (I support): NB7KKK3BVHHYTVP2X5WYA475GLAUDXQS6CDMKT4G
No - (I do not support): NDDMCPR4RIDKRIYXRCRV5JMBXOXZQG5RZJNYHYIL
I found this data in explorer:
http://explorer.ournem.com/#/s_account?account=NBOOZMXZMKQMCYLRH4R5CTOIGRVYQFNQ677K7VLK
http://explorer.ournem.com/#/s_tx?hash=610d2c540fcc1bf1f6ea160d6c6b59a8e68403ce75cea829744009019ca1f1f7
And confirmed in Nanowallet 1.4.13 (because sometimes yes/no addresses are swapped places in explorer).
8 Days left until the end of the poll.
Intermediary results
~0.59% POI already voted (required 3%)
Voting details:
A big YES from me!
Thanks Dan, much appreciated.
Thank you for your support. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks for the vote. 
The voting information has now been updated with additional details for the direct YES/NO votes.
Done. Thanks for this.
Brilliant! Thanks for your support.
Big yes from me.
I could also see this kind of application in the pharmaceutical industry.
Tracking the supply chain and the proof of origin of pharmaceuticals/drugs could make quality control a lot easier.
Iâve been working with the BlockGrain team based out of the Blockchain Centre Melbourne and have been sharing with them about the NEM blockchain potential. I have already mentioned about the project model but I also want to give a shoutout to the people. The BlockGrain team throughout the discussions have been extremely responsive to questions, receptive to thoughts and rational in their thinking and approach towards convincing the community in bolstering the right support and addressing the naysayers. Iâm hoping this project will come through and we can build more real-world use cases for NEM!
Voted Yes
Hello BlockGrain.
I posted something similar in another community proposal and also want to post it here.
You are requesting a total of 800k XEM. At the current XEM price this would equate to around $1.17 million - Iâm guessing this is the rough dollar amount of what you feel is needed to complete everything stipulated in the project proposal.
If the price per XEM increased to say $10 before the majority of the milestone funds were released what would happen with the remaining $6.8 million that would be left over?
And what would happen if the price of XEM decreased to $0.10 and you were now short over $1 million to complete the tasks in the proposal?
âWill the project fail if you donât receive community funding? Or would you go straight to ICO in that case?â
No, the project will certainly proceed without community funding. The NEM Community Funding allows us to develop blockchain features for our product much sooner than we had originally planned. The funding accelerates the blockchain component of our business.
We know the project will continue if you donât have the required funding but you would no longer be able to fulfil the agreement of developing the product in the specified time frame.
This is an issue which is present for all community projects that request funding in XEM rather than stable fiat currency. The project is at risk of being underfunded and failing due to volatility of blockchain assets, or the community will overpay (potentially significantly) reducing funds available for the growth of the NEM platform.
Requesting funding in a fiat currency is a win / win for the NEM community. It dramatically reduces the chance of funds being wasted, while giving max sustainability of NEM community funds in the event of a significant price increase.
I disagree whilst crypto is currently volatile we are supposed to be pushing the technology as a benefit and alternative to fiat. The community fund to which projects apply for funding is in XEM not fiat and funds are drawn down against that fund. It has always been this way and is not unique to Blockgrain donât see that the rules came be challenged half way through a proposal.
At the moment we have to ensure those able to vote are voting so that it achieves the quorum or threshold PoI of 3%. The project has a good vision and capable team and MVP so to me it is a Yes for relatively small amount of funding. A debate around community project funding is probably worth creating but not linked to any particular project proposal
I donât believe cryptoâs are at a stage where they should be used as an alternative to fiat in respect to using them to analyse how much funding is needed in a long term project. If we asked those making project proposalâs they will have conducted their costings in fiat.
Fiat is a far better tool for that right now (and probably will be for a while). Forcing it through with XEM or any other cryptocurrency for ideological reasons is a pretty bad idea imo.
I think it is irrelevant that the communty fund it is drawn from is in XEM when the majority of spending will be in fiat and those being paid in XEM will be accepting it because it holds a sufficient value in fiat. If a project requests 1% of the total Community Fund in 2015 and it had a value of $200,000, should the exact same project implemented in 2017 request 1% if it then had a value of $2,000,000?
I also donât see how it always being that way is a reason to avoid change. If anything blockchain fights against keeping old out of date methods the same.
I donât have the power to change the rules, nor did I suggest changing them for BlockGrain. I asked how they would proceed in 2 circumstances which could easily happen and would both negatively affect the NEM community. One would also jeopardise the BlockGrain project.
I also donât see a reason why BlockGrain couldnât add extra stipulations to their proposal if it appeased some community members concerns, it could secure them the extra support they require to fund the project.
I think theyâre valuable questions in the context of this proposal and it also brings up a debate about changing the way these proposals are run. In fairness to BlockGrain I bought up the same questions to another community project I wonât name here, and I will continue to do so with other projects.
Youâre a great community member KingCole, but I think youâre off base here.
I look forward to BlockGrains reply and a better way of structuring future âCommunity Fundâ project proposals.
7 Days left until the end of the poll.
Intermediary results
~1.13% POI already voted (required 3%)
Voting details:
6 Days left until the end of the poll.
Intermediary results
~1.45% POI already voted (required 3%)
Voting details:
